Ouroboros Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Robert, you're touching a subject that reminded me about something that I have to tell. (Actually, I don't "have to" tell it, it's more that I "want to" tell it. ) The Church I belonged to had some visiting preachers from America at one time to the Bible school, and they had a seminar for a whole week (they had visitors from all the world on a regular basis, so this was common). The preachers were Sam and Jane Whaley (sp?). At one of their sessions they were preaching really hard against certain kinds of music, like heavy metal, rock, pop and to my surprise: classical music! Now, every meetings started with worship, where we would sing for 30-45 minutes. Some of these songs were really beautiful, and you could feel the "inspiration" from them. One of the songs though, which was extremely beautiful, was a stolen melody. It was from Finlandia, by Edvard Grieg. That is a classical piece depicting the Finish mythology how the gods created Finland. GASP! And here I had learned that Classical music was from the Devil, and here we're singing to the Devil's music! I knew at that point that most teachings are bogus and bullshit. You have to filter what you hear based on your own common sense. If I ever should point back to any episode that was a starting point to me questioning my faith, that would definitely be on the top of my list. Pretty cool that one of those fundamentalistic evangelical preachers with the Holey Sprocket in them, would cause me to start doubting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Hansolo - you agreed in general with my understanding of the meaning behind the adam and Eve story. I bet TheListener doesn't think the people on this site could take anything positive from that story after the discussion he / she took part in earlier in the thread... and this is what drives me NUTS! about Christians and this sort of debate. They feel they have to defend the literal aspects of a blatantly allegorical story (like they really believe snakes talk etc) and inviting ridicule No debate - just a farce And here is the reason why But I have to agree with his defense of biblical inerrancy in his well known Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. After explaining that witnesses in a court of law lose all credibility once they have been caught lying, he applied this principle to the Bible. The same is true of Holy Scripture. If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents uncovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to it trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (pp. 23-24, emphasis added). I have yet to see any of the new fundamentalists give a satisfactory reply to Archer’s argument. All of their talk about a "high view of inspiration" is... well, just talk, but it does not make the problem that Archer identified go away. It doesn’t explain why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would do only a halfway job of "inspiring" men to write his "word." If such a deity could "inspire" the ideas, why would he not have been able to inspire the words? In fact, it seems a bit idiotic to me to call a book "the word of God" if the words in that book are not the words of God but only the words of fallible men who were given "ideas" to record in their own words. Anyone with any kind of background in writing should know that this is a ridiculous premise. Traditional Biblical Inerrancy And now you know why creationist are hell bent on proving that the earth is young, and that evolution didn't happen. Check out the rest of the article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Robert, you're touching a subject that reminded me about something that I have to tell. (Actually, I don't "have to" tell it, it's more that I "want to" tell it. ) The Church I belonged to had some visiting preachers from America at one time to the Bible school, and they had a seminar for a whole week (they had visitors from all the world on a regular basis, so this was common). The preachers were Sam and Jane Whaley (sp?). At one of their sessions they were preaching really hard against certain kinds of music, like heavy metal, rock, pop and to my surprise: classical music! Now, every meetings started with worship, where we would sing for 30-45 minutes. Some of these songs were really beautiful, and you could feel the "inspiration" from them. One of the songs though, which was extremely beautiful, was a stolen melody. It was from Finlandia, by Edvard Grieg. That is a classical piece depicting the Finish mythology how the gods created Finland. GASP! And here I had learned that Classical music was from the Devil, and here we're singing to the Devil's music! I knew at that point that most teachings are bogus and bullshit. You have to filter what you hear based on your own common sense. If I ever should point back to any episode that was a starting point to me questioning my faith, that would definitely be on the top of my list. Pretty cool that one of those fundamentalistic evangelical preachers with the Holey Sprocket in them, would cause me to start doubting. Hansolo I had that Music thing as well and I never understood it. In my case it was rock music as that was what I was into - Iron maiden, Motorhead etc. I was told its something to do with whether the beat is On beat or Off beat .. I understand what on beat and off beat IS but how that could be used to differentiate between Gods and the Devils music was crazy I agree that some of the lyrics would be 'unchristian' but the fact that some music was of the devil purely because of the way it is written. The mind boggles! I don't hear these aruments much these days ... Maybe Christinas see more sense than they did back then in the 80's. Back then women wearing hats was big and so was NOT watching any telly on a Sunday (that was a bummer having to tell your pals THAT I can tell you). Both of these things are not talked about now either. Wonder when they became OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think that there are parts that Jesus said (or said to be said by him) that addresses spiritual insights. IMO, there are parts, that when read without the garbage added to his words, that will lead one to certain understandings. An example could be when he said to 'deny thyself'. The very teachings of spiritual people are those that tell people to dissove their egos, or what they regard as 'themself'. He also says, "I and my Father are one." This also tells me that god is in Jesus and he is able to recognize it. Jesus was not the only one. God (Whatever that is) is inside everyone and everything. The Gospel of Thomas states of Jesus saying, "Turn over a rock and you will find me." Also: Luk 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Jesus was no more god than anyone else, he was just more in touch with his inner nature, which is what is claimed to be god but not in the sense that the writters made it out to be. I've often heard religious and spiritual teachings that sound like a call to dissolve the ego. At this point in my life I can't see why that's a good thing. Isn't it better to be in harmony within oneself? That self includes my animal nature, the drives of the "lower" parts of the brain, etc. I feel much of my life my poor ego has taken a very harsh drubbing at the hands of a superego that was imbued with teachings about the value of death to self, extinction of the separate self, and all that. I'm trying to find my self more not less. Am I off? Does this whole death to self stuff only make sense within a framework of belief in immortality? Or am I misconceiving what dissolving the ego really means? Maybe I ought to start a separate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Hansolo I had that Music thing as well and I never understood it. In my case it was rock music as that was what I was into - Iron maiden, Motorhead etc. I was told its something to do with whether the beat is On beat or Off beat .. I understand what on beat and off beat IS but how that could be used to differentiate between Gods and the Devils music was crazy I agree that some of the lyrics would be 'unchristian' but the fact that some music was of the devil purely because of the way it is written. The mind boggles! I don't hear these aruments much these days ... Maybe Christinas see more sense than they did back then in the 80's. Back then women wearing hats was big and so was NOT watching any telly on a Sunday (that was a bummer having to tell your pals THAT I can tell you). Both of these things are not talked about now either. Wonder when they became OK? We had the teachings against rock music in the 80's too, in the pentecostal denom. But about the classical music was during the 90's in the Word of faith movement. And I found it so silly when music was music. But their explanation was that it put you in a certain mood. It gave you certain feelings, like melancholy or sublime feelings. And that's what they disliked. but at the same time the same melodies were used to put you in a "mood" during worship! It was argued that the problem was the purpose of the music. So I wonder if I sang a really satanic song, but I sang it with a good heart to God, would it be holy then? Weird... really weird... I never heard of the "beat" argument, that's funny. I guess the melodies have to be 4/4 only quarter notes to be considered holy. Things become approved over time. It was like the violin for instance. When it first came out hundreds of years ago, the Church called it the Instrument of the Devil (or similar). Then during the 18 century it became more popular, and today we even consider it old fashioned religion. Or the books Lord of the Rings, it was condemned as inspired by Satan when I grew up, and now I hear people comparing those books with the Bible in a religious context. I'm sure the next coming years, people will hear teaching against techno and trance music, and 50 years from now it will be common in church. And Harry Potter is fuel for fires today, but will be on bookshelfs in the Christian bookstore in 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. Oooh, that's good. It pretty well sums up my whole problem with xtianity. Talk about your 'feet of clay' or 'a house built on sand'. If biblegod couldn't even explain the basics of the solar system to ancient goat-herders (i.e., meteorites are not stars, the sky is an optical illusion and not a ceiling or canopy, the earth revolves around the sun, etc.), then how could the bible be correct in other matters? Answer: it can't. Either it's allegory/fable, or it's nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think that there are parts that Jesus said (or said to be said by him) that addresses spiritual insights. IMO, there are parts, that when read without the garbage added to his words, that will lead one to certain understandings. An example could be when he said to 'deny thyself'. The very teachings of spiritual people are those that tell people to dissove their egos, or what they regard as 'themself'. He also says, "I and my Father are one." This also tells me that god is in Jesus and he is able to recognize it. Jesus was not the only one. God (Whatever that is) is inside everyone and everything. The Gospel of Thomas states of Jesus saying, "Turn over a rock and you will find me." Also: Luk 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Jesus was no more god than anyone else, he was just more in touch with his inner nature, which is what is claimed to be god but not in the sense that the writters made it out to be. I've often heard religious and spiritual teachings that sound like a call to dissolve the ego. At this point in my life I can't see why that's a good thing. Isn't it better to be in harmony within oneself? That self includes my animal nature, the drives of the "lower" parts of the brain, etc. I feel much of my life my poor ego has taken a very harsh drubbing at the hands of a superego that was imbued with teachings about the value of death to self, extinction of the separate self, and all that. I'm trying to find my self more not less. Am I off? Does this whole death to self stuff only make sense within a framework of belief in immortality? Or am I misconceiving what dissolving the ego really means? Maybe I ought to start a separate thread. I honestly hope I can do your questions justice and I will give it a try. I am going to use some of don Miguel Ruiz's teachings to answer your questions. And remember, this is my opinion (I say this so I don't have to type IMO all the time! ) I think you are trying to find yourself more. I think that your true self is what you are searching for. I know I am! Every day I find myself getting angry at something. There is nothing wrong with anger, because emotions are geniune. They react against a percieved threat, be it real or not. And, what I believe about who I am (my ego) often times feels threatened when there is no outside threat other than a hurt ego. Many times I get so upset that I get so upset that I can't hardly stand it. I am punishing myself over and over again. This feeds my sense of who I think I am. This is a lie. If I was really this person, it wouldn't bother me that I get angry and I wouldn't care that I blame others for my own response. But I do care. I think that is my true self. The one that cries out against the punishment I heap on myself over and over again. My true self wants to be happy and peaceful, but my ego won't allow it. I have believed my own lies and the lies of others for so long that I have to un-learn this knowledge. No one is better than I am and I am not better than anyone else. We all are perfect. It's believing in lies that causes what appears to be a conflict between good and evil. Good and evil doesn't exist other than in the minds of those that believe it. The only opposites (abstract) that exist are what is true and what is not true, and good and evil is the result of that belief. So, personally, I want to slay my ego so my loving, caring and kind self can be freed. And in order to free myself, I have to realize that everyone else creates their own life story and they are usually fighting the same battle I am. With this understanding, I no longer have to feel threatened by what they say because I don't have to believe them or the things I tell myself. When they say something that comes from their integrity, my own integrity will recognize it and I can believe them. What makes me 'know' that this is true is when myself or my daughter screams, "I hate myself!" If we are the ones doing the screaming, who are the ones that are listening? Our integrity is being abused, by ourselves. For my daughter, since she is so young, I am just passing on this 'belief' system to her. This is how it propagates...this has to work for me...for her sake. I hope I answered that okay, because this is something that I struggle with daily. But, hopefully with this recognition it will improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts